Still one of the prettiest games on the market after 4 years [56k wait outside]
This topic is locked from further discussion.
As I watch my brother play now, it's just.... ugh. World of Warcraft is incredibly flamboyant. What is flamboyant? Essentially, it's all flashy but no real substance. It's meant to amaze you with your primal senses, but little else. It's all pretty, pretty, pretty, like a magazine advertisement trying to capture your attention. Here's an alternative:
Why do I believe this is better? Well first of all, let's get this out of the way: you're going to probably be more attracted to a WoW screenshot at a glance. It's got more attractive colours, and the geometry is wild. But Lord of the Rings: Online wants to engage you on a higher level. Look at the architecture in the above screenshot. Similar to the Valley of Heroes in Stormwind, correct? But it goes beyond that. It has true character. You see, the architecture shows age, history, and culture. It helps convey the sense of awe and ancient-dwelling that the Dwarves have left the players in Moria. The Valley of Heroes does not do anything like that. It shows huge statues, and that's about it.
Then again, should I criticize Warcraft for being all flashy? It's all about flash down to its very core. Look at all the names of the characters, places, and people. Stormwind, Windrunner -- they're all too cool for school. Look at the armour sets -- they're badass, or, if you're a female, you'll be showing a lot of ass (aka skimpy). Yeah... not a huge fan of Warcraft lore or art sty1e. But I am a fan of Warcraft III :D.
Anyway, here's some more pics of the glorious Lord of the Rings.
Here's some Age of Conan. Unlike Warcraft or Lord of the Rings, Conan's world is low-fantasy, so it's not as epic looking as the former two.
Are the textures completely loaded?
EDIT: I thought Age of Conan looke better. Maybe I'm thinking of Warhammer?
AoC>>GW>WoW IMO
And yes, I understand that WoW came out about 4 years ago, and AoC came out earlyer this year and was a major flop (i stuck around for about 4 months after the game came out and they never fixed the memory leaks)
But it really is the best looking MMO IMO
Im surpised here, because I think that picture looks like rather bland. It blows WoW away in terms of technical graphics, but I just find WoW 10x more appealing than the above picture. that my opinion anyways.... all im saying is WoW is extremely pretty, not graphically impressive.AoC>>GW>WoW IMO
And yes, I understand that WoW came out about 4 years ago, and AoC came out earlyer this year and was a major flop (i stuck around for about 4 months after the game came out and they never fixed the memory leaks)
But it really is the best looking MMO IMO
c1o2d3y
Kameo, a launch 360 game seems to destroy all those games visuals easilly
That rouge with elaborate armour might not look practical, but it sure as hell looks appealing, and stands out next to X player. Of course in visual design in games in general; nearly all the time in games, despite the context, its what looks more appealing, rather than something that is simply practical visually, that strikes a chord with an audience; be it an iconic Big Daddy, a small Italian Plumber or a Final Fantasy character.skrat_01
Now, this is one of the things Theodor Adorno (Frankfurt School of Thought Founder, philosopher, musicologist extraordinaire, and a huge influence on sociology) warned us about when he talked about popular culture not being true art. Where great artists used sty1e as a means of expression, many people in the entertainment industry will use it at sheer face value, most normally using sty1e as a means of selling a product, and I urge you to take that quite literally.
skrat, I'm sorry, but what you just said up there was one of the most disgusting things I've ever heard on here. That is complete and utter filth. You have belittled art direction to sensory stimulation. That is what you have written. "It's what looks more appealing". I'm just.....let me get some things out of the way first:
1) The Big Daddy is not just meant to be eye orgasm like World of Warcraft.
2) Mario's look stemmed from technical restrictions of the NES system. Look it up.
I cannot stress how much you have derogated art direction into something that 'merely looks pretty'. It is just a huge slap in the bloody face. Do you know where your line of reasoning leads to? Do you know who else thought of art as immediate sensory candy?
If you want to at least pretend that video games are an artform, do not think this way.At all.
-
You haven't told me at all why Blizzard uses this over the top sty1e, and how it's suppose to evoke an overall mood or theme. I don't think you understood my isolation of World of Warcraft as the independent culprit: I previously stated that we can't fault Warcraft 1, 2 (and possibly 3) since they are more often than not deviations of Warhammer's art sty1e (Warcraft was created simply because Blizzard could not get a license to Warhammer), an exaggerated art sty1e being a necessity for the type of table top game it was. World of Warcraft goes above and beyond the call of duty and decides to place OTT everywhere. It's not about the "how" or the "why" anymore, because it just "is". It is akin to a Michael Bay film where all he does is make the camera move around the entire scene, and one asks "What's the point of circling Will Smith in Bad Boys?". Your answer would be? If we take your analysis of WoW into account, perhaps it's something along the lines of:
Its bold, varied and distinctive. Everything is pretty exaggerated...however this makes the visuals both stand out, and have a strong appeal, as it enhances the attractive qualities skrat_01
It is exactly the same thing. Sugarcoat everything in lots of obvious visual eye candy and satisfy the masses. Michael Bay is bold, varied, and distinctive. Michael Bay exaggerates. It makes his visuals stand out and have a strong appeal, and it enhances the attractive qualities of his films. Maybe Martin Scorscese should take a leaf out of Michael Bay, huh?
That's how World of Warcraft does its business.
The visuals scream personality. Sure they are 'cartoony', however it doesn't look like a kids game due to the strong artistic direction behind the simple technicals of the visuals.skrat_01
That's the thing. It doesn't look like a kids game. It looks like a McDonalds game, made to gratify everyone in the short term, but ultimately no one in the long term.
A game like Age of Conan prides itself in its technical prowess, but lacks this strong bold visual ****that WoW has; which seems to have a broader general appeal - something far more unrealistic, than something that pushes itself arguably towards the uncanny valley, while trying to create a believable environment.skrat_01
I don't think you've played Age of Conan. In fact, I don't even think you know 'Conan'. I hope you read my first elaborate post in this thread entirely instead of picking out that small quote to reply to, because I did explain that 'Conan' is low fantasy. Everything in 'Hyborian Adventures' screams low fantasy. If you're looking at the accurately proportioned geometry and deciding to base your analysis on that (which is why you talk of Conan trying to create a 'believable environment'), then you have entirely missed the point. If you ever wondered why 'Conan' fans got riled up because of Funcom's censorship of certain things, art direction may be the first aspect to look into.
Difference is a game like Age of Conan or LoTRO visual ****works perfectly for each of these titles, as they both realise the universe and setting of their respective subject matter. For instance the visual ****of WoW, certainly would look out of place in the much more gritty Hyboria.
skrat_01
No, the difference is AoC and LotR:O realize that their art direction is meant to communicate something to the player, not just communicate with the player itself. They intellectually stimulate the settings of their respective worlds, as opposed to mentally incapcitating brain cells in favour of pleasing the eyeballs.
Log in to comment